Australia, where "Left" is Centre

[Tigers!]

Take it from a beseiged American: such a "niche market" can easily turn an election. Or the mind of a witless conservative politician.

Of course there is no such thing as witless non-conseravtive pollie is there?

 

[Tigers!]

And it appears everyone is forgetting one simple fact about print media today; you can read the fucking articles online. Not only is print media not going away it will continue to have significant influence over media as a whole. So yes Murdoch owning most of the newspapers in Australia is a real fucking problem.

But if it was not owned by Murdoch that would not be real problem now would it?

Against I ask the question why are there no "centre-left", "left" newspapers in Australia? Even such newspapers need to make money to survive. They would be tedious, boring, insufferably self-righteous rags. (Bit like the Guardian actually)
I read the Guardian on-line but I would not spend my money on a paper version. That would only be fit to wrap yesterdays rubbish or the fish & chips.

 

[Tigers!]

You seem to be complaining most about the reach of those newspapers (news sources).

No. My initial post was entirely about media bias. I supplied several graphic examples of it. In my next post I made a brief comment concerning Newscorp's dominance of the print media. That was a reply to an issue you raised. The next three comments in that post were once more about bias.

As always bias is in the eye of the beholder. Don't confuse my willingness for them to aim for a particular audience as me necessarily agreeing with all they say.
Those papers are ultimately commercial entities. If they do not make money then they fold (no pun intended). They have determined/ decided that they remain viable by aiming at a certain demographic which just happens to be one of which you are not a member. They are not obliged to pander to all sensibilities as they are not using public money. You will need to find something more your style or start your own.

This is merely a justification for the predominance of right wing newspapers, and not a very good one.

It is obviously a rather good justification as they are still being printed despite your fulminations.

 

[bilby]

You seem to be complaining most about the reach of those newspapers (news sources).

No. My initial post was entirely about media bias. I supplied several graphic examples of it. In my next post I made a brief comment concerning Newscorp's dominance of the print media. That was a reply to an issue you raised. The next three comments in that post were once more about bias.

As always bias is in the eye of the beholder. Don't confuse my willingness for them to aim for a particular audience as me necessarily agreeing with all they say.
Those papers are ultimately commercial entities. If they do not make money then they fold (no pun intended). They have determined/ decided that they remain viable by aiming at a certain demographic which just happens to be one of which you are not a member. They are not obliged to pander to all sensibilities as they are not using public money. You will need to find something more your style or start your own.

This is merely a justification for the predominance of right wing newspapers, and not a very good one.

It is obviously a rather good justification as they are still being printed despite your fulminations.

That's because they are popular. But popular isn't the same as informative.

People don't want to be informed; They find it tedious.

People want to be outraged, scandalised, and alarmed.

Which is fine, until they start using those emotional responses as their basis for their voting choices.

 

[Patooka]

Against I ask the question why are there no "centre-left", "left" newspapers in Australia?

Short answer - Malcolm Turnbull. Long answer; once the Coalition shredded the cross media ownership laws not only was News Corp able to purchase whatever they wanted, what was conceived as leftwing media (eg Fairfax) was gobbled up. Do you really need a lesson on how difficult it is to enter a market where there is a near monopoly in that sector?

I've got an interesting exercise for you; look up editorials from say, Piers Akerman or Andrew Bolt. Look at the amount of times they group Fairfax and the ABC together before 2018. Then see if they ever do that after 2018.

 

[bigfield]

Here are some recent samples of the overblown anti-Labor coverage from Murdoch:

 

[Politesse]

Of course there is no such thing as witless non-conseravtive pollie is there?

Someone might say something like that. Not me, though.

I trust "pollies" about as much as I trust insurance salesmen, on general principle.

 

[Tigers!]

Of course there is no such thing as witless non-conseravtive pollie is there?

Someone might say something like that. Not me, though.

I trust "pollies" about as much as I trust insurance salesmen, on general principle.

That does seem to be wise advice.

 

[Tigers!]

I can't help thinking that there is a whiff of poor me in the complainants about "alleged" bias in the Australian newspapers. If the ratio was reversed i.e "alleged" unbridled centre-left, left coverage then I am absolutely certain that Bilby, Hermit, Patooka et al would not be complaining about that.
It is what it is at present.
I am so sick of these foolish and juvenile gotcha attempts by "journalists".

 

[Patooka]

I can't help thinking that there is a whiff of poor me in the complainants about "alleged" bias in the Australian newspapers. If the ratio was reversed i.e "alleged" unbridled centre-left, left coverage then I am absolutely certain that Bilby, Hermit, Patooka et al would not be complaining about that.

The bias I could live with. I really could. It's the oligopoly Newscorp and Nine Media share that I have HUGE issues with. And I would be equally apprehensive if both media outlets openly fellated the Greens.

No one media outlet should have the market share either corporation shares. No exceptions. Incidentally, I always do a double take when I find myself agreeing with a political party too much.

 

[Patooka]

Just to add; I would also be skeptical of any media outlet that socialises with politicians. Case in point - two different reports about the same event:

Murdoch:
Scott Morrison has been confronted by an angry resident at a private event, with the exchange caught on tape.

Other:

At Morrison's media party, there's no such thing as a 'free' drink

For the sake of impartiality, the media must extricate itself from the vortex of the Prime Minister's "influence", writes Dr Jennifer Wilson.

independentaustralia.net

 

[Hermit]

I can't help thinking that there is a whiff of poor me in the complainants about "alleged" bias in the Australian newspapers.

There is nothing "alleged" about bias in the Australian newspapers. It is real, pervasive and constant and goes like this: Conservative politicians = good, Labor politicians = bad. This bias does not merely exist in the eye of the beholder. It exists objectively, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the message. I have provided enough graphic front page evidence of it here to make its existence undeniable.

If the ratio was reversed i.e "alleged" unbridled centre-left, left coverage then I am absolutely certain that Bilby, Hermit, Patooka et al would not be complaining about that.

What makes you so absolutely certain I would not be complaining if the ratio were reversed? I do not regard the Labor Party in general and Tony Albanese in particular as exempt from criticism. I do not think that corruption on the left should be ignored or policy failures papered over. If the media were as blatantly biased in favour of progressive politicians as it has been in favour of the conservatives for almost all of its existence, I would be just as pissed off. There are no holy cows. Bias is bad, regardless which side it leans.

 

[bigfield]

I am so sick of these foolish and juvenile gotcha attempts by "journalists".

He may not align with you politically, but Adam Bandt gave a journalist a pretty good rebuke after getting one of those questions. (Not just the one-liner, but the remarks afterward.)

'Google it, mate': Greens leader Adam Bandt criticises fact-checking question

Greens leader Adam Bandt has hit back at a journalist’s question which seemed to be trying to catch him off guard. 'What’s the current WPI?', asked Ronald Mizen from the Australian Financial Review. ‘Google it, mate!’, Bandt responded. Elections should be 'contest of ideas', Bandt said. Not a…

www.sbs.com.au

Political coverage at election time often feels like a macroeconomics gameshow where leaders and ministers are expected to recite datapoints to prove that they know how to run an economy.

After Albanese flubbed his gotcha question on the unemployment rate, Morrison was happy to exploit it, suggesting it meant Albanese wasn't competent enough to be trusted with the economy.

These gotcha questions are not just lazy journalism, they are part of the larger narrative that a government's success is measured by it's ability to deliver economic growth for the sake of big business. The media is fixated on performance indicators that have little or no bearing on the prosperity of the average citizen, like GDP growth and slack in the labour market. These metrics are primarily of interest to corporations seeking to maximise their profits. Journalists point to such figures and pronounce that the government is doing a good job, but what they really mean is that government is doing a good job for big business. Some of that wealth will trickle down to the average citizen, but who knows, because the media doesn't show any interest in such things.

When you look at a lefty news source, you find different measures of economic performance. Have wages grown? How many people are under-employed? Is home-ownership growing or declining? These questions are focused on the government's economic performance with respect to people, not corporations. That's a fundamental difference between left and right wing: the left believes that the job of the government is to deliver prosperity to everyone; the right believes that such prosperity will just trickle-down.

Damn-near everyone should be furious that the government's economic management for the last decade has delivered negligible growth for the average citizen while delivering record profits for corporations and property investors. But the media has trained people to be content with the scraps that they're thrown.

 

[bigfield]

Murdoch papers doing campaign ads for the Treasurer, now that he's in danger of losing his seat:

 

[Hermit]

Murdoch got an early start campaigning on behalf of Frydenberg when he delivered the budget five weeks ago.

Kevin Rudd commented: "Imagine the Murdoch coverage if Labor had just delivered 4x the deficit, 5x the debt—then rolled out $5.6 billion in panicked spending, while hiding $3 billion in secret post-election cuts! It would be Armageddon on the front pages."

 

[Tigers!]

I seem to remember that Albo had a very soft interview recently with Grace Tame. I'd rather an interview that makes the pollies (no matter who they represent) squirm and get them to justify what they are claiming.

That would be worth reading, not these fluff pieces.

 

[bigfield]

I seem to remember that Albo had a very soft interview recently with Grace Tame.

We'll add that to the tally board:

Opposition:
Fluff interview for a fashion blog.

Government:
Fluff interview with Karl Stefanovic on 60 Minutes.
Coordinated fluff newspaper articles across the country.
Fluff interviews on AM radio.
Softball interviews on ABC.

I'd rather an interview that makes the pollies (no matter who they represent) squirm and get them to justify what they are claiming.

That would be worth reading, not these fluff pieces.

I agree with you on that.

Unfortunately instead of that we've got lazy, belligerent interviewers on the ABC who act like their job is just to serve up Government talking points instead of doing actual journalism.

I think it is most important that journalists scrutinise the government of the day. Government should have to work hard to justify their continued incumbency. Yet Australia's media only seem to find their voice when a Labor government is in power. Economic coverage is much higher when Labor is in power. The government's debt and budget deficit only matters when Labor is in power. When an Labor MP gets payments from a Chinese businessman it's a huge fucking deal; when the former LNP minister for trade takes a $800k job with the Chinese company that bought the Port of Darwin, it's of no interest.

This is one of the reasons why we need a federal ICAC: we can't rely on the media to investigate corruption; we can't rely on the media to investigate cases where the government has broken the law. Voters, especially low-information voters, are kept in the dark. Even the Chaser, a satirical blog, is doing better investigative journalism than whichever site told you to get upset about Albo's InStyle Magazine interview.

 

[Patooka]

I think it is most important that journalists scrutinise the government of the day. Government should have to work hard to justify their continued incumbency. Yet Australia's media only seem to find their voice when a Labor government is in power. Economic coverage is much higher when Labor is in power. The government's debt and budget deficit only matters when Labor is in power. When an Labor MP gets payments from a Chinese businessman it's a huge fucking deal; when the former LNP minister for trade takes a $800k job with the Chinese company that bought the Port of Darwin, it's of no interest.

And this is the big reason why I vote Labor. Not because I put on some pom poms and my cheerleader outfit whenever they are mentioned, but because they appear to be the only fucking government that the media holds accountable. State or Federal.

 

[Tigers!]

I seem to remember that Albo had a very soft interview recently with Grace Tame.

We'll add that to the tally board:

Opposition:
Fluff interview for a fashion blog.

Government:
Fluff interview with Karl Stefanovic on 60 Minutes.
Coordinated fluff newspaper articles across the country.
Fluff interviews on AM radio.
Softball interviews on ABC.

I'd rather an interview that makes the pollies (no matter who they represent) squirm and get them to justify what they are claiming.

That would be worth reading, not these fluff pieces.

I agree with you on that.

Unfortunately instead of that we've got lazy, belligerent interviewers on the ABC who act like their job is just to serve up Government talking points instead of doing actual journalism.

I think it is most important that journalists scrutinise the government of the day. Government should have to work hard to justify their continued incumbency. Yet Australia's media only seem to find their voice when a Labor government is in power. Economic coverage is much higher when Labor is in power. The government's debt and budget deficit only matters when Labor is in power. When an Labor MP gets payments from a Chinese businessman it's a huge fucking deal; when the former LNP minister for trade takes a $800k job with the Chinese company that bought the Port of Darwin, it's of no interest.

What Robb got away with was indefensible.

This is one of the reasons why we need a federal ICAC: we can't rely on the media to investigate corruption; we can't rely on the media to investigate cases where the government has broken the law. Voters, especially low-information voters, are kept in the dark. Even the Chaser, a satirical blog, is doing better investigative journalism than whichever site told you to get upset about Albo's InStyle Magazine interview.

I much prefer watching a pollie taking questions from the voters rather than journalists. Always get better quality questions. Most journalists in Australia seem to think they are entertainers or act like it it seems.

 

[bigfield]

Reporters Without Borders have downgraded Australia's press freedom ranking:

Australia

Reporters sans frontières assure la promotion et la défense de la liberté d'informer et d'être informé partout dans le monde. L'organisation, basée à Paris, compte des bureaux à l'international (Berlin, Bruxelles, Genève, Madrid, Stockholm, Tripoli, Tunis, Vienne et Washington DC) et plus de 150...

rsf.org

Index

RSF's World Press Freedom Index aims to compare the level of press freedom enjoyed by journalists and media in 180 countries and territories.

rsf.org

On the media dominance of News Corp and Nine:

Two giant firms dominate the media landscape, making Australia’s media landscape one of the most concentrated in the world. Nine Entertainment group, run by the Packer clan, has consolidated its position in recent years by buying parts of Melbourne-based Southern Cross Media and by absorbing the Fairfax Media newspaper chain and the Sydney Morning Herald, the country’s newspaper of record. Meanwhile, News Corp., controlled by the family of Australian-American magnate Rupert Murdoch, is emblematic of the dangers that media ownership hyper-concentration pose to media pluralism. The company’s Australian subsidiary controls more than two-thirds of the country’s leading papers, including The Australian daily, as well as most online news portals. This oligarchic model prioritises business interests to the detriment of public-interest journalism. As such, state-owned broadcasters have taken the lead, with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), both of which offer high-quality investigative journalism.

The business manoeuvres regarding the concentration of media ownership are all the more harmful to pluralism, in that the local media have traditionally played the fundamental role of linking information for the populations scattered across Australia’s immense territory. The Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA), which advocates for Australian press freedom, noted in an alarming 2021 report that more than 150 local and regional papers closed in the space of a year. In general, business reasoning has put editorial integrity and economic viability of the media behind the concerns of cost reduction, which leads to salary restructuring. This situation has become devastating for the local press, which is on the verge of extinction.

On the LNP government's suppression of investigative journalism:

The executives of the big media companies maintain close ties to political leaders, which fuels doubts about the editorial independence of the outlets they own. In 2021, a Senate committee confirmed the existence of a growing culture of secrecy by the administration vis-à-vis the press, of informal pressure not to reveal certain matters, and of intimidation of whistle-blowers under the pretext of protecting national security. On the public service side, the independence of the process for appointing members of ABC’s board of directors raises all the more questions, as the government has embarked on a drastic cost-reduction plan. The network’s budget has been cut by more than half a billion Australian dollars (330 million euros) since 2014, leading to hundreds of layoffs.

At the federal level, the Canberra parliament has also adopted, since the end of the 2010s, several problematic laws: those on national security, espionage, and data encryption, in particular, contain provisions authorising officials to violate the principle of journalists’ confidential source protection.

Australian journalists do not face violence or arbitrary detention. But the perception of their security situation is no less worrying: in a 2021 study, nearly 90% of them said they feared “an increase in threats, harassment or intimidation”, starting with threats from the government. Indeed, a 2019 search by the federal police of both the home of a political journalist in Canberra and the headquarters of the ABC created an alarming legal precedent that threatens the survival of public-interest journalism.